Printable View
Unfortunately it will probably be too late Saturday for the Sunday papers to go with it and by the time Monday comes it is old news - the fallout however may make sport headlines in The SunQuote:
Originally Posted by Adaptor
Surely the owners would have had to be in agreement Noel
Maybe a competitor manufacturer tipped off stewards
Maybe the competition ( trainers and owners) got sick of chasing the horses trained by the two trainers who scratched.
Dan Milecki just commented before race 9
"The meeting will be remembered for the wrong reasons. Following on from a fantastic Cranbourne Cup....tonight...tragic.
Obviously Big Dan can't say a lot as it may cost him his job.
Sulkies
Sulkies from the HRA website
271. Only sulkies of the type, dimensions and materials approved by the Controlling Body may be used.
271A. A sulky shall conform to the standards set out in the document adopted by Harness Racing Australia entitled "Standard For Safety and Performance of Sulkies" and sub titled "The Sulky Standard."
Where do you find details of 271A?
Adam Hamilton said that it all came about due to HRA notifying HRV about concerns. How HRV took it upon themselves is another matter, as is the reaction of the 2 big stables
Absolute Shambles!!!!! Ridiculous!
On Sky last night they were calling the gigs "modified UFO gigs" what that means I don't know. Two sides to this but the question to be asked is, as a steward said when interviewed before the race on sky that they had the information on Thursday.Did the stewards allow horses to race at Melton on Friday night in these same gigs that were bared at the races on Saturday night?
There is no argument that
1. Gigs that don't meet specifications should not be sold as race gigs in Australia (not saying that this occurred)
2. When you buy something it's up to the buyer to ensure what you buy is legal for use (who would buy a gig for thousands of dollars and think that there could be a problem).
3. Cup night is not the time to be running the tape over gigs when you could have done something the day before.
HRV issued a statement..."We were informed by Harness Racing Australia during the week of concerns some UFO sulkies were wider than what is allowed. I informed our steward who oversees gear that when next at the races he is to measure the sulkies. He measured them at Thursday's meetings and there was no issue" Why would HRV not hav issued a message to trainers as a heads up as soon as the issue came to hand on Thursday/Friday to check their sulkies rather than thinking it will all be good. Also HRV Stewards are trying to shift blame as they said "UFO is not a new sulky manufacturer. I’m surprised that an experienced sulky maker would supply sulkies outside of HRA specifications". UFO made an error but common sense would hav been to issue a statement & contact trainers to avoid this happening tonight.
Also Emma Stewart confirmed that they used the same now illegal sulky at Melton on Friday night.
All true Toni but I thought they were saying that the trainers who scratched were not prepared to use 'modified UFO gigs' (but you know I hearing is crap)Quote:
Originally Posted by Race For Fun
More on the sulky approval :
NEWS ROOM
HRA Industry Notice - Sulky Approval - UFO Sulky
03 October 2012
UFO Sulky
UFO Sulky.
Harness Racing Australia (HRA) has approved the use of the UFO Sulky in racing and trial events, effective from 1 October 2012.
As part of the HRA approval process the sulky has been tested for strength, durability and performance. This testing is performed by Human Impact Engineering. This sulky has also been used in trials under the supervision of stewards.
The sulky conforms to all the requirements of the HRA Sulky Approval Policy and meets the HRA Sulky Standards.
For further details about this sulky contact:
Frank Ranaldi
Frank Ranaldi Enterprises
56 Eva Street
MADDINGTON WA 6109
Phone: 0419 947 159
Email: franaldi@iinet.net.au
HRA takes the process of testing of new products very seriously as it impacts on the health and safety of all participants as well as the welfare of the racing horses.
HRA will continue to work with all manufacturers and distributors of gear and equipment to ensure that all new products meet the standards as set out by the industry.
For any comment or for additional details please contact Gary Kairn, Operations Manager, Harness Racing Australia on (03) 9227 3003.
Bookmark and Share
Does that mean trainers have illegally modified sulkies to gain an unfair advantage? If so, that is no different to drug use. Lucky to get away without a suspension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaptor
That UFO quote is a couple of years old so it would seem that since then
- they have either sold illegal sulkies
- or trainers have modified their sulkies (unlikely you would spend big bucks then do this - then again maybe we are just talking about using a longer axle)
The bigger issue of course is how the Stewards handled things
As for Emma Stewart talking about legal action, unless the stewards measured incorrectly last night, she does not IMO have a leg to stand on regardless of the stewards poor timing. (More chance the Ballarat Club could take action against the trainers for destroying the night?)
If this is true, then this whole affair becomes infinitely more farcical.Quote:
Originally Posted by MJD
I think she should have buttoned it about that one - they may be disqualifiedQuote:
Originally Posted by brent_L
Something does not smell right with all this. If as reported the sulkies are 50cm wider, why not borrow a legal sulky for a 100k race or does that 50cm really make a huge difference.
I think you meant 50mm or 5cm Bails but other than that you are too logical. You would have thought at least one major owner would have insisted on your suggestionQuote:
Originally Posted by p plater
Now I must admit that it did not smell right to me either and for one crazy second I turned into Mel Gibson as Jerry Fletcher and thought it was all a cover for some other pre-race abnormality LOL
Kevin, about 2 inches in the old.
You could understand the odd one being out a bit but to have 4 units in one stable and then refusing to race a bit odd.
Disgraceful and embarrasing how this was handled. Should have let them start last night and then undertaken a sensibly thought out inquiry. If they approved the sulky then they would be found at fault. If the manufacturer changed the specs and the distributor did not resubmit for approval then he is at fault. I suspect the inquiry would (will) find that none of the trainers are at fault, so why penalise them on such a big night.
On a similar theme on which I have commented before why aren't sulky changes included on the stable returns/ gear changes for a meeting. Everyone (including the stewards after last night) knows these carts make a huge difference. If a trainer changes a horses bit from snaffle to straight they have to advise the stewards, and in turn the punters, yet these silkies can be swapped on and off at will. Theoretically a trainer could start a horse in a 20 year old Regal SS Sulky for 3 or 4 starts then put a UFO on without telling anyone, then back the horse. Wouldn't even have to tell the stewards at an improved performance inquiry. In the states, the sulkies I.e. UFO are announced in the warm up.
I don't know much about the problem with the gigs, only what was on sky last night but if the horses were scratched because the only gigs the horses can race in are 50 mm wider than what is legal. Does that mean that those horses now are unable to race as the only gigs that they can physically race in are not legal?
Hard for a trainer to say last night a horse could not race in a certain width gig but if Hunter Cup time comes around and those wider gigs are still not allowed to be used all of a sudden the horses can race in in the narrower gigs .
Horses should have been allowed to race in their normal gigs last night and fix the issue this week. How can stewards think they made the right call either if they didn't stop the wider gigs from being used on Friday night. Once again harness racing is made to look second rate.
My understanding is that the offending sulkies are a modified version of the standard approved UFO.
The UFO is approved for use in Australia and NZ but I am unsure whether the modified version has or needs approval.
The sulky at issue is modified to assist with horses who strike the wheels struts when racing.
Some are modified width (offending ) whilst others are modified lengthwise.
There is a baseless suggestion in some of the posts of this thread but IMO there are no integrity concerns in this issue and whether some big races were won fairly using a UFO sulky.
It is a matter of whether the modifications are approved within the licencing and wof testing of the UFO sulky.
It may well be both the CEO and Chairman of HRV made reference to integrity issues surrounding the events from Thursday through to last night rather than legalities of sulky dimensions teecee but I'm not sure there isn't a concern with over dimension (width) sulkies and fair racing. If we're talking about the extreme outer dimension of a sulky it's cut and dried? One of the drawbacks of the USA style sulkies, adopted for use here, is the reduced 'lift'. One way of increasing lift is to bring the driver closer to the horse where you can run into trouble with hooves striking the struts or wheels. If rectifying that means the outer dimensions of the sulky are outside HRA specs, end of story? Alternatively extending the shafts, modified lengthwise/shaft extensions to give hoof clearance, will have a detrimental effect on lift but keeps the sulky in specs. Certainly not suggesting any participant would consciously use an over dimension width sulky but there could be an advantage considering our racing style and size of tracks. We race on half mile tracks with tighter racing than North America. A horse with a correct sulky could be blocked for a run either to the inside or outside of an over dimension sulky.
If anyone suggested that big races may have been won unfairly - I missed it. Oops they surely did and I even quoted it (for its second half) - my badQuote:
Originally Posted by teecee
Interesting Wayne. Am I right, in summarizing, that getting nearer to the horse to provide lift can create hoof strike problems so the answer would be to go back to a longer sulky until a wider short one is approvedQuote:
Originally Posted by arlington
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
In short (no pun intended) it would seem the logical answer Kev but approving wider sulkies would have wider ramifications (pun intended).
Forgetting how 25mm either side of a sulky can make a difference (if it can).
Some trainers change carts. Cossel and Jilliby Royal in the 3yo race for example. One not look comfortable from the go. The other under perform. If the sulkies such an advantage why no pre race announcement?
Guaranteed had problems 'going straight' early on as 3yo. Tipping they put a lot of time into fixing problem. Want them to change sulky at last minute?
They knew Thursday of problem. Put announcement up on website after last race last night. We saw in car in car park last night. Said measured carts Friday. Carts OK Friday but then measured last night and not OK?? People then dispute carts measured Friday. They change thing on website to Thursday. Changed?? Why not measured both days? If such a big deal why not both days? Why no message sent telling people check carts on Thursday? Why leave until Saturday night?
My point not about whether carts legal or not. My point about "WTF going on?" Why stuff up Ballarat Cup night? Makes no sense at all.
The whole thing a total embarassment. Been following and participating for many years now. Try to be positive all the time but even I struggle after last night.
As an aside, I cannot believe that Ballarat Dogs were on last night too
Kev, they obviously thought they would make it a double whammy, even though you would think that the whole evening should have been focused on there harness meeting.. It's a night that the Ballarat club would want to forget ASAP...
But they are splitting the punting crowd (even if the tracks are only a block apart)Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoken
Emma Stewart won a couple of races at Wedderburn today - I wonder whether these horses handled a change of sulky
They obviously didn't see it like that Kev. The outcome was a massive flop regardless. Really makes Harness Racing seem dodgy!
I am relying on new Racing Minister Martin Pakula to keep me hanging inQuote:
Originally Posted by Smoken
The alien sulky was approved in july 2014 so we are looking at 4 scenarios
1-the person doing the original measurement for HRA measured wrong and alllowed approval
2-Ufo as a compsny got the sulky approved then changed (knowingly or unknowingly) the size
3 - the trainers used a 3rd party to make sulky bigger
or 4- they measured wrong last night
I'd be interested to know what sort of carts are used when fast working the horses that were scratched last night.
Exactly Rob, Yet to see anyone use their good carts at home in trackwork.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Escape Club
Lets not put 100% of the heat on the Stewart camp Kev, the Aiken stable scratched Cold Sister and 2 from the Cup too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
In the heat of the moment, some people can overreact, it seems like there has been a bit of that here - with dramatic consequences. There are 42 laws in the cricket rule book - the unofficial 43rd law is common sense - should be in the HRa laws as well.
I was at the track last night and still cant believe how it unfolded. An absolute disgrace, with no winners from this situation.
The boo when the race started was electric.
If its correct that Stewart/Aiken refused to use another sulky and opted to scratch her starters I hope the owners of the horses they scratched last night take their horses and give them to new trainers. If my horse was fav for the Ballarat cup, I would be ****** off if it was scratched so my trainer could make a protest/statement against the industry.
At the end of the day, rules are rules.
[QUOTE=Messenger;39134]If anyone suggested that big races may have been won unfairly - I missed it
Check out #40 (and #41)
There is a lot of bad blood on here in regards to the trainers who scratched their horses. My understanding is that these modified carts were used on these horses so as not to be striking the sulky parts during the race. That is to say the horses had difficulty racing in the standard size sulky. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
From the trainers' perspective the issue is addressed by the use of a modified sulky. They cannot put a standard sulky on the horse and the horse run truly and / or not be injured. (My perspective as a trainer)
From the owners' perspective as per a trainers' perspective as above. Sure, my horse couldn't race in a prestigious race but in knowing why the horse has raced in that cart previously my horse 's safety is paramount. (My perspective as an owner)
From the punters' perspective my investment is scratched as the trainer has deemed the horse can't/ wont race truly I get my investment back. Better than it going down the gurgler even before the race is run.
From the perspective of all three parties, this situation could/ should have been handled in a not too difficult manner without negatively impacting the interests of any of the parties.
Chances are that each of the horses that were scratched had been racing in sulkies that had been adjusted ( or modified?) to suit each horses size, gait ( especially the way they spread their hind hooves when at full speed) for some time. I guess that you can't pick up the details of the sulky Guaranteed used in the Miracle Mile, Swan Hill Cup etc from the videos.